Letters

The Limits of IDEA: Opposing Viewpoints

To the Editor:

In "A Bad IDEA
Is Disabling Public Schools" (Commentary, Sept. 5, 2001), parent
and legal expert Clint Bolick blames what he calls the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act's "rule-laden" and "monomanical focus on
process ... rather than academic progress" for the disappointing
performance of children with learning disabilities.

There are too many rules. There are also too few of the kind that
could make a big difference. Special education is subject to the waxing
and waning of delivery models and of teaching techniques. Merit is not
always decisive in these changes. Merit would play a larger role if
parents had choices.

Florida's pilot voucher program for parents of children with
disabilities is therefore of interest ("Florida's
'Other' Voucher Program Taking Off," Aug. 8, 2001). Florida parents
are finding services that work for their children. Cumulatively, their
choices could pull special education forward in terms of techniques and
models. A proposed new rule for special education: Parents may exit a
program that is not working for their child.

In a recent letter to the editor, however, history professor Brian
Peterson ("Flaws in
Florida's Voucher Program," Letters, Sept. 5, 2001), takes the
opposite tack. He wants to narrow Florida parents' choices. He would
not permit parents of disabled children to use a voucher to choose
"regular school education." Parents of nondisabled children, he fears,
might "push the limits of the [learning-disabled] definition" in order
to get a voucher.

Mr. Petersen seems oblivious to the major thrust in special
education the past 10 years: "inclusion" in regular classrooms. Tighten
criteria for learning disability, by all means, but do not force
children from regular education programs.

Mr. Petersen would also bar parents from adding family money to a
voucher, should tuition exceed the voucher. He fears such " 'topping
up' ... opens the way to vast inequality in voucher-supported private
education."

His second point has appeal. Who could favor inequality? But
consider this more deeply. The Children's Scholarship Fund, a privately
funded scholarship program for low-income children (1.3 million
applicants for 40,000 scholarships) knows that parental involvement is
critical to a child's success in school. What better way to encourage
parental involvement than to let parents choose their children's
schools, then ask them to "buy into" that decision, even with a token
amount? The Children's Scholarship Fund pays a maximum of 75 percent of
the tuition.

Let's look at the rules for special education. But let's look beyond
surface appeal to what is in the best interests of children.

Tom ShufordRetired New York Public School Teacher
Ventura, Calif.

To the Editor:

Far from being a "toxin that infects our nation's educational
system," as Clint Bolick claims in his Commentary, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act is an educational lifesaver for millions of
children with disabilities. The 20th Annual Report to Congress states
that in the past decade, the number of students with disabilities who
graduate from high school has increased by more than 30 percent, while
the number of students with disabilities going into postsecondary
education has doubled.

Further, studies show that special education instructional
strategies are highly effective. The Texas Schools Microdata Panel, for
example, found that special education programs have a significantly
beneficial effect on performance in math and reading.

Make no mistake, special education works. But it was never intended
to address the needs of all children. First, within general education,
we must provide effective instruction and interventions to all
children, thus reducing the number of children referred to special
education.

Second, other programs, such as Title I, must provide additional
assistance to children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and
experience learning problems. And special education must help children
with disabilities—the children who experience learning problems
even when given the best instruction offered by general education.

In the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation/Progressive Policy Institute
report referred to by Mr. Bolick, several authors said that even with
the best early instruction and remediation, a sizable number of
students will require the special instructional strategies special
education offers.

Special education continuously strives to improve services to
children with disabilities. The last IDEA reauthorization included
provisions to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, ensure
they are included in standardized assessments, allow for earlier
identification of students at risk, and discourage students from
minority backgrounds from being overidentified for special education.
Many of these provisions have only recently been implemented by local
school districts. We must evaluate the impact of these provisions and
determine what additional reforms may be needed to further improve
educational outcomes for children with disabilities.

But there is no reason to wait to improve educational outcomes for
our children, nor is there any reason to dismantle the IDEA. Rather, we
should use every opportunity to improve our educational system.

Special education has always believed that each child must receive
appropriate instruction to meet his or her individual learning needs.
We all, in general and in special education, must work to make that
happen.

Nancy D. SaferExecutive Director
Council for Exceptional Children
Arlington, Va.

Reacting To Tragedy: Teachers, on the Day of the Terrorist Attacks

To the Editor:

Our high school in Jersey City, N.J., is nearly opposite the World
Trade Center, just a short trip across the Hudson River. Ironically,
our first written and discussed topic for Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, was,
"American History: Who Cares?"

As expected, the kids wrote about how boring history is, and how
it's "not about us, or things that happen around here." Today, from the
vantage point of our east-facing windows, all that has changed.

Mario NavettaJersey City, N.J.

To the Editor:

I am an education student with only one year left before beginning
my teaching career. I am also a parent with two sons in elementary
school. It's important, I think, that we, as educators, use our
positions to give children the amount of information they need to
comprehend tragic events. I'm not advocating that we tell them
everything or show graphic images in our classrooms, but even
kindergartners should be told that something bad happened in New York
City on Sept. 11. A teacher can be objective without scaring a
child.

In the school where I will intern, the principal issued a directive
on the day of the terrorist attacks for teachers to give out no
information. So teachers said absolutely nothing to their students.
Although my sons are in a different school, I was horrified that
perhaps, if they hadn't heard about the attacks in their schools, they
would turn on the TV or be told by students on the bus home before I
could be there with them. I was grateful when I learned that their
teachers had briefly mentioned what happened and allowed the students
to voice their concerns and feelings.

Yes, it's important that we don't cross the line between what are
parents' rights and responsibilities and what are teachers', but not to
talk at all to students about such momentous events sends the wrong
message. And some children don't even have parents at home. Whom can
they trust for the kind of communication they need?

Diane ThomsonWaukesha, Wis.

To the Editor:

On the day of the attacks on New York and Washington, our middle
school chose to explain and inform. We spent a good part of our school
morning watching the news reports, in English and in Spanish;
explaining the terms being used and their meanings; talking about the
historical relevance of the events and connections; and discussing what
we could do, living on the other side of the country, to help out the
people in these cities.

The kids in our school (and I suspect elsewhere) all want to do
something. So the elementary school is starting a "penny drive." All of
our students are from the inner city, and their families do not have a
lot of discretionary income. So we also have discussed making a quilt,
as was done after the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, as well
as making and distributing ribbons to wear as a sign of
remembrance.

Patty Ann BryantPhoenix, Ariz.

To the Editor:

Educators should be aware that there are some good links on the
American Psychological Association's Web site for information on
dealing with disasters: both on the home page and if you search for
Oklahoma City. The address is http://www.apa.org.

David WeissLong Island, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I learned of the tragedy while supervising the hall outside my
classroom between classes. My initial reaction was, "You kids believe
too much of what you hear; I've been to that building and I know that
what you're saying is not possible."

When the teacher next door verified the information, I felt a sense
of horror, a desire to know more, and a fierce determination to remain
calm. A hand-delivered message from the principal, however, directed
teachers not to turn on TVs or radios and to wait for further
information from the administration, which never came.

Meanwhile, I didn't teach geometry that period. We spent the class
time discussing feelings, reactions—and the directive not to
watch television. That had surely been meant to help control panic, I
insisted, not to suppress information. Initial reports would not, in
any event, be able to answer our questions of who, what, how, why, how
many, and—most specifically—who is lost?

That night, I cried a lot—every time I failed to learn of my
own daughter's whereabouts. She lives in New Jersey and works in New
York City. I contacted my best friend, whose husband had seen the
second plane hit the World Trade Center while on his way to a meeting
there. It took two days, but I finally learned that my daughter was all
right. Now, I'll be much better able to focus on my students and their
academic needs.

Gloria SatchellKingsville, Texas

To the Editor:

I am a first-year elementary education student at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and the mother of an 8-year-old boy. The Madison
school district decided not to tell the system's elementary students
about the terrorist attacks, but to let parents discuss the tragedy
with their children later as they wished.

I found my own son very angry about these outrageous acts. It was
sad for me to see him so angry at such a young age. But, at the same
time, I came to realize how strong, patriotic, and loyal he is. He
cares about his fellow man and his country, and that makes me
proud.

I am trying to learn more from current teachers about how they are
handling this terrible situation in the classroom. But I pray that,
when I teach, I will rarely if ever need to use such skills in quite
the same way.